When you submit a CSR (Cert Signing Request), you generate the private key and keep it private; all you submit to the CA is the public key, which they sign. They never see the private key.

If this were really run by the NSA, they could quite easily create their own signed certificate and install it on a SSL decryption proxy, and then they can SSL man-in-the-middle your website to see what your website is doing. Since the "fake" signed certificate is signed by the same CA that the real one is, nobody would know the difference unless you look at the cert's serial number and fingerprint.

Depends on the State. If police show up sans warrant and try to force entry to your home without probable cause, you can defend the home with deadly force if necessary.

[citation needed]

You really think that you can use deadly force against the sworn police department and not have any ill-effects? I'm betting that the police are better trained in firearm usage than you are and you will likely end up dead if you start a shootout.

Ahem... House of Cards (US), Orange is the New Black, Marco Polo... won't find those in the "bargain bin".

Those are all Netflix original programs, so they do not need to pay anyone else for the right to broadcast them. If they were to try and get new episodes of cable TV shows, then they would have to pay the same way that Hulu and Comcast do.

A store offering a subscription arrangement needs to search for upcoming expiration dates so that it can 1. notify each subscriber that the card on file with the store is about to expire and 2. charge the ETF on the last valid day if the subscriber fails to update the card by the expiration date.

Why do the expiration dates need to be encrypted? A thief can't do anything with just the expiration date without also knowing the CC number

"But it also raises the question of whether targeting anonymity services to hunt out fraudsters could have chilling effects for harmless Tor users trying to protect their privacy online"

Umm.. the user is ordering something using their name, credit card, and address. They are not going to use Tor to protect their anonymity.

That statement was not about normal people using TOR for online purchases. It was about people using TOR to hide their identity when doing things like posting to a controversial website, or whistleblowing. If this software catches on, and websites start using it to block TOR users, then it would make TOR less useful for posting anonymously.

I fully expect my government to not violate people's privacy and conduct surveillance on them to stop the evil bogeymen.

Then don't use the USPS. There are plenty of other mail transport services out there, that may or may not do this same tracking, and may or may not provide said tracking to the government upon request.

Security. Properly configured, a router with public-access Wi-Fi should not represent a security risk for those on the router's private and secure network. The technical reasons for this are a bit complicated; read an Open Wireless Movement explanation at openwireless.org.

Service degradation. Those using the slower public portion of a home router typically won't degrade performance on the faster private side. Future routers would speed up public access when the private side isn't being used and give the private network priority if required.

Legal liability. Those who fear being blamed for misuse of their public Wi-Fi signals are said to be protected under a "safe harbor" doctrine akin to that protecting Internet service providers. In other words, they're likely not liable for the mischief of porn purveyors or music pirates.

Freeloading. Fear of freeloaders is misplaced, the Open Wireless Movement believes. "Sharing capacity helps everyone," it says. "If you've ever been without Internet access and needed to check an email, you will remember how useful open networks can be in a pinch."

Sure, the game companies may not want this released, but does the FBI care? If they investigate, and find and arrest the hacker, it's up to the D.A. whether or not to prosecute, not the game companies. This seems like a worthless insurance policy/blackmail, because the people going after him are unaffected by the action of him releasing the encryption key.